About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17
clinton was running for reelection, at this point in the campaign he was not at 44%. he was at 504%. that is that 10 percent difference president obama has so destroyed the confidence of his own party in an independence that he is lagging ten points behind where bill clinton was. he is in terrible political say and for reasons i will review here shortly he is going to get worse before it gets better. i personally believe that 44 percent is a ceiling, not a floor. that is, inflated. my friend, great assistant to richard nixon, ronald reagan speech writer and adviser has long argued that there is no such thing as a bradley effect. the bradley effect is named for mayor tom bradley of los angeles when he ran against george deukmejian did not do as well in the final balloting is he had been doing in the polling. for years pundits have ascribe that to the brad the affected people are free to say they're not going to vote for african-american because they don't want to be up to the prejudice he they're talking anonymously to pollsters. and he has all the data, and i believe him, but i bel
gorbachev. what do you think about? >> is that because bill clinton has been such a great president they elected in great part, or is there something, i want to say, almost about a man who could getaway with things over and over again? >> she clearly hated being not others just bill clinton's wife. finally, last november 1998, hillary clinton showed the world what she could do in the campaign trail without him. political mastery, every bit as dapper lee ♪ >> for castro, freedom stirs education. and if literacy alone was the yardstick on the kivu would rank as one of the freest nations on earth. the literacy rate, 96%. >> the new speaker was on the floor for a time holding her six-year-old grandson, although i give you directions on how events were to proceed good it seems the ultimate in multitasking. taking care of the children in the country. >> people apology to savior, the messiah, messenger change. >> i would like to say that in some ways, barack obama is the first president since george washington to be taking a step down into the oval office. >> we know that wind can make a
but he never had a full congress that was republican. bill clinton did have a full congress that was republican but bill clinton was democrat. and you have fragmented government, george w. bush had a republican congress for four to eight years. george bush scarcely had the best domestic legislative accomplishment that could rival lyndon johnson or to be fair richard nixon. perhaps the 2012 elections will generate a unified government that will pass its preferred programs but it would be foolhardy, most observers at this time is the more or less maintenance of the status quo in which barack obama will continue to occupy the oval office as the republicans continue to patrol by reversed number of the house of representatives with the senate at this time being up for grabs. so we should be open for the possibility that the current election will fit the shakespearean description of sound and fury signifying nothing or very little with regard to domestic policy and that is what i am focusing on. perhaps not nothing. considered the conclusion of tom friedman's column on april 22nd
've done something about it, but then i just complying with the tax code he created. how could clinton get away with claiming that the republicans were the ones who deregulated and created the real estate and financial problems when he repealed glass-steagall in 1899. that was the underpinning, and away, of of the whole problem. i would say it's a cheap wine or two because in 10 short years, all the big banks, almost all of them another. i just wonder how he can get away with that and i was one of the hallmarks that give a bump at bill clinton's speech. does he just not want to admit it? or does he know that people will care or following research this? how does it make a statement in front of everyone? >> host: maria bartiromo. >> guest: we are in political season, right? it's all politics and so, you know, number one on the tax code, yes, that is what i just said. i agree with that. because a scene change over the last three years of her going to complain about people not paying their fair share, change the tax code. it is all legal. if a money manager can use whatever loopholes to lower
agree to get big compromises on these issues. >> can i add the role of history suggests the clinton and ronald reagan the second term as the productive term, the big achievement so it's hard to know whether the republican party will -- where they will push the blame if that happens, but the question is how they decide to spend the next four years and i think it's very hard to tell but there is some hope in looking back at both clinton and reagan. >> he was also a far right to limit took running the republican party at the time whoever they equivalent was a time and. but in fact he wasn't. life was a little more complicated by the fearful analogy. >> he raised taxes -- >> i think that's why the parties in opposition tend to be less responsible than parties of power. i think you probably agree. >> agree from your point of view i can think of the times when the other party the of irresponsibly in opposition and the question as it seems to me it from the is elected and you have the party that you think would be responsible and is in the position they have to govern and we will see what
class believes. the things that president clinton used, balanced approach. opportunity and, i thought that governor romney really didn't do anything to dissuade the general public from the view that he would like to go back to the days of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and hope that this time, instead of growing deficits, and growing unemployment, that it grows jobs. so governor romney really needed a game changer tonight. i hate to say this but i find myself agreeing with chris christie. governor romney really needed to turn the world upside down. he really need ad game changer tonight. i think you would be sore pressed to find that magic moment that was the game-changer tonight. and, so, that was my view in watching it anyway. i also thought the president did a very good job finally nailing governor romney down to admitting he does want to turn medicare into a voucher program. i thought the president pushed back on that very effectively, when he said, hey, if you're 55 you might want to listen to this. i'm still not sure exactly what governor romney was saying about his promise o
bill clinton get away with claiming that the republicans were the ones who deregulated and created the real estate and financial problems when he repealed glass-steagall in 1999. i was the underpinning and away the whole problem. i would say a sushi pointer to because in 10 short years, all the big banks, almost all of them went under. so i just wonder how he can get away with that. that is one of the hallmarks that gave the campaign a bump for bill clinton's speech. is he just not want to admit it? or does he just know that people won't care or following research this? how does you make that statement front of everyone? >> host: maria bartiromo. >> guest: we are in political season. it's political folk all, all politics. and so, number one on the tax code, yes, that is what i just said. i agree with that. what could have seen change over the last three years of her going to complain about people not paying their fair share, change the tax code. it is all legal. if the money manager can use whatever loopholes are available to him or her to lower their tax expense, of course they're
comprises on the big issues. >> can i add, i mean, a little history can clinton and rage. the second term was the productive term. the big achievement. it's hard no know whether the republican party will -- where they will push the blame if that happens. but the question is how they decide to spend the next four years. and i think it's very hard to tell. but there is some hope in looking back at both clinton and reagan. >> reagan was considered a far-right lunatic running a far right republican party, by the way, at the time. by whoever the equivalent was at the time. maybe it was tom freedman. in fact he wasn't. >>, i mean, life is more complicated despite the analogy. >> he raced. he raised taxes when he needed to . >> he did a lot of things and, you know, that's why i think parties in opposition tend to be less responsible than parties in power. i think you probably agree with that. >> what's different. >> difference in agreeing from your point of view. i can think of times when the other party also behavedder responsely in the opposition and the question is, it seems to me is if romne
. the first thing is we were in the middle of an election campaign, and candidate bill clinton was comparing beijing to baghdad. and this was right at the time when china was moving from baghdad to paris. maybe i'm overstating the case a little bit, but that's essentially what was happening. i mean, this was a dramatic shift in china, and the u.s. government paid absolutely no attention to it. it had no impact on the policies of the clinton administration when it took office. and, of course, since i was the american ambassador to china this confronted me with problems with an american government that had one view of china, that china was already moving in a different direction, and that created some contradictions in trying to carry out my instructions faithfully. but i think this time, you have something that goes of that. clearly are the bush eli a fair has exposed that china's political system is not different from others. leaders struggle for power. they have their own ambitions. some succeed, some come crashing down, as in the case of bush eli. so we shouldn't assume that just because c
,000 a year, that we should go back to the race we had when bill clinton was president, when we created 22 million jobs, what from deficit to surplus and created a whole created a lot of millionaires to boot. the reason this is important is because they doing that we can not only reduce the deficit. we can not only encourage job growth of small businesses, but were also to make investments necessary in education or in energy. and we do have a difference when it comes to definitions of small business. under my plan, 97% of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. governor romney says well, those top 3% of the job creators they burdened. under governor romney's definition, as a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small-business. donald trump is a small business. i know donald trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything, but that is how you define small businesses after getting small-business income. that kind of approach i believe will not grow our economy because the only way to pay for without either burdening the middle-class or blowing up our
there will be a committee to look at the decision in the u.n. but also invite the u.s., secretary clinton said only a few hours ago, we should not put any red lines to iran. when you deal with the enemies in the middle east, you don't play according to the rules of washington, d.c., jerusalem or vienna. it is a different ball game. it's a different language. if you want to work with somebody in iran to stop the nuclear race, you have to take action. and in my book i worried very directly that it is not enough to talk. we need to take action. and we have seen that sanctions are not crippling sanctions. and i think what happened the last month in the decision that our friend in canada took to close the embassy in tehran, it is a brave decision. we should have done it years ago. because the people in iran, they look at what's happening here. in two weeks' time, ahmadinejad will be traveling again to the u.s., he will go to the u.n., he will deliver a nice speech, but then he will go back to iran, and he will continue with the race to build that nuclear bomb. in my book i spoke a lot about israel, but it aff
else. this is math. president clinton said it. this is arithmetic, and we can take that money that we are spending, $225,000 per year and spend the copley to get teachers that want to come into the profession. about that difficult, hard work. at the end of the day, it's marginal. it is symbolic. it's about like a child in the family, and it's about those who need to do their homework. that's not what makes the difference. it is the expectation that they will do their homework and they will not show up the next day without it. >> hold on for second, let's get the microphone. >> hello, i work for in metropolitan detroit. i would like to talk about something regarding not being able to cut your way to excellence. it is really good teacher but a pilot program, but when we are talking about taking the success and charter and making it large-scale, rolling it over to a public school, how do you get the best teachers and how do you motivate the teachers who are already in the system. i would like for either one of you to address that. >> it is a very contentious five-day training program and
, they built the repeal. the repeal, for those of you that don't know, was signed by bill clinton as president, helping to deregulate. what did we have? the taxes on the rich were discontinued. the regulations were discontinued. what is it that we saw. we saw that by not changing the organization of capitalist enterprises, we left in place people would be incentives and resources to do everything they are going to achieve in the depression. it is sort of like winning a war, but leaving the other army in place with all of its armaments. knowing that they have a lot of resentments about how it ended up. they might, you know, use their weapons to try again. if you leave in place a corporate capitalist structure, a small group of major shareholders who own the shares in their hands, they therefore select the board of directors and and remember what a board of directors doesn't every corporation? it decides what you produce, however pursuits, were to produce, and what to do with the profits. were americans, it is a fundamental and moral political issue. here we are in a country, after all, which cl
clinton and i will ever worked closely together and then barbara bush was refrained in the fifth son. [laughter] now he works with president george w. bush as well. at that time i was interviewing president bush is when i was doing a series of pieces on the president and the constitution and the same set of interviews i interviewed president ford and its the last time i saw hampshire and he said you know, i want to see what's going on in washington after his years in the house of representatives. when i was gonna norti lever of the house and you're father, my father was the majority leader of the house he said when we were a minority and majority leader they go down to feed press club or something and solomon say willie going to argue about clarke's piece said there's a legitimate d date. we genuinely disagree about the means to an end. and it was partisan. for heaven's sake we were the leaders of the party but then we get back and our best friends and go back to the hill and are able to be civil with each other, have a drink together and be very good friends. they were such good fri
minimal with the first ladies, other than hillary clinton. but i think ann romney was quoted the other day by radio iowa saying about the criticism, stop it, this is hard. and i got a lot of e-mails about that, either when we did something on the blog, bearing from coming in, good for her to, doesn't she get it? was another one, keep to can you imagine if michelle obama had said that? people would've been angry. i thought it was a very, i think was probably not something the campaign as a structure would've wanted as a statement on the because it's not their message. but i thought it was a very human thing. she was talking about her husband, she is experienced with getting beat up. i guess the response to that is you chose to run for office and yes, it is hard. what we demand from our candidates is a lot in the country. even for the criticism that ron is getting about not doing enough in terms of events. he is doing a tremendous number of fund-raising events. it's incredibly hard and incredibly grueling. i can't imagine watching my husband go through it. my husband has a similar reaction i
, and let me quote president clinton, it takes an awful lot of breast to so much accuse me of doing something they have done twice. >> moderator: senator heller? heller: i never heard so and give an answer what they said they didn't do it and then said they did in the same spell. the of the year, continue to tell the light of your even with confidence. is still the light of the year. she talks about the ryan budget. she talks to bring it to the fore. all it wants is -- and when are the ryan budget was going to pass. what we need is a democrat budget. we couldn't get a democrat budget out of the united states center. we couldn't get the majority leader to have a budget hearing. couldn't happen. i don't feel like have to explain this to my own opponent. bunch of republican budget, a democrat budget and you bring them together and you solve the issues. that's my goal. i want solutions. but you can have solutions if one side is not going to talk. >> moderator: thank you. diego has the next question. he will attest to congresswoman congresswoman shelley berkley. >> in january 2007, the t
back on. i will turn it over to jeff and then we'll go to randy and then george comes back, clinton's up once we have him back online. >> nic, thank you but it's an honor for me to be are speaking of old home week. i started working on deregulation issue of the american advice institute in june 1979. so it's great for me to be back after a long time. i think that the paper that greg and judge bork have done is really very excellent and i think rick has done a great job preventing -- present the cages in which wages and. i'd like to use my time to expand on three aspects of the issue that i think are pertinent. all of these are aspects that the paper touches on to one degree or another. but i'd like to call them out and drill down just a little bit on this reach characteristics of high-tech markets and have impact the way we think about the google issue. and those our first modularity and in a platform competition. secondly, the notion of multi-sidedness, which greatest talk about. and thirdly, diamond is a. so let's think about modularity and into platform competition. i think the p
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17